Hitler had been recognized by all foreign governments. Also during the last war the recognition was not withdrawn. One has therefore to assume that, from the point of view of international law, Hitler was the lawful government and representative of Germany. For the purposes of this article we need not deal with the question whether, according to German public law, he came to power, for instance, by means of a coup d'état or a perjury.

There is general international acceptance at the present time of many limitations placed on the conduct of the forces of states engaged in armed conflict. It is generally agreed, for example, that prisoners of war must be treated humanely; that wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces must receive special attention; and that the position of noncombatants and persons in occupied territory must be safeguarded. Limitations on the use of gases and submarines, among others, have been widely accepted. The rules are recognized as binding even in the event of an illegal war and are accepted, at least to some extent, even by nations and groups not parties to the treaties and conventions which have sought to set forth general limitations.

The Governments whose duly authorized representatives have subscribed hereto, sharing a substantial interest in the conservation of the fishery resources of the Northwest Atlantic Ocean.

The United States of America and the United Mexican States consideringtheir respective interests in maintaining the populations of certain tuna and tuna-like fishes in the waters of the Pacific Ocean off the coasts of both countries.

The International Labor Organization (hereafter referred to as the ILO) was established by the peace treaties concluded at the close of World War I as an autonomous part of the League of Nations for the purpose of promoting social justice.

The matter of public international rules for the protection of private property rights has frequently received the attention of publicists, courts and treaty-makers. Some recent developments, bearing upon different aspects of the general subject, seem to attest its current and continuing importance. For example, the presentation to Congress of President Truman’s Point Four plan occasioned questions as to the guaranteeing of overseas investments of United States citizens. A few weeks later, at a meeting of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations, a Belgian speaker and a representative of the International Chamber of Commerce emphasized the need for treating lenders according to certain standards of decency and fair play, and expressed the view that an economic climate encouraging to foreign investment was as far away as ever. On a somewhat broader plane, the appearance in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), but not in the more recently evolved International Covenant on Human Rights (1950), of provisions looking to the right of individuals to own property (“alone as well as in association with others”) and to be free from being arbitrarily deprived of it, raises questions as to whether the right of private property is not a basic “human” right.

Article 1 of the Convention on Certain Questions Relating to the Conflict of Nationality Laws permits “each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals.” It is precisely because the loss and acquisition of nationality is a matter of unilateral state action that statelessness under certain conditions does occur. The loss of nationality is sometimes closely related to the methods by which nationality is acquired. Most common among these methods of acquisition are: (1) by birth, (2) by minority, (3) by marriage.

The Treaty of Peace concluded in Paris between the United States and Spain on December 10, 1898, ending the Spanish-American war, provided in Article III that “Spain cedes to the United States the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands and comprehending the islands lying within the following lines…” In another treaty concluded between the same countries on November 7, 1900, it was provided in the Sole Article that

The determination of the Allied Powers to seize and punish war criminals was implemented several years ago by the corollary decision to ask for their extradition from foreign countries. President Roosevelt announced on October 7, 1942

The question of recognition by an international organization of the representation of a Member State, a question recently considered by the General Assembly of the United Nations as a result of a proposal by Cuba, had previously engaged the attention of several international bodies. For instance, after the Italian conquest of Ethiopia, the Credentials Committeeof the Assembly of the League of Nations was confronted with the issue of the seating of Ethiopian representatives in the Assembly.

To provide for the settlement of certain claims of the government of the united states on its own behalf and on behalf of american nationals against foreign governments.

The question of including in an international multilateral instrument provisions defining the application of the instrument to the dependent territories of the contracting states has been a controversial subject in the United Nations. Such provisions, generally known as “colonial clauses,” may take one of three forms. They may provide for the optional application of an instrument to the dependent territories of the contracting states, so that the instrument does not apply to the dependent territories of any contracting state unless the latter chooses to extend the application of the instrument to all or any of its dependent territories. On the other hand, they may provide for the optional exclusion from the application of the instrument of the dependent territories of the contracting states, so that the instrument applies to the dependent territories unless a contracting state chooses to exclude from the application of the instrument all or any of its dependent territories. A third type of colonial clauses may provide for the automatic application of the instrument to the dependent territories of all contracting states. However, there are instruments, notably the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, which do not contain any reference at all with respect to their application to dependent territories. In such cases, the general rule seems to be that, subject to express or implied provisions to the contrary, the instruments apply to all the territories of the contracting states, including their dependent territories. The following is an account of the developments in connection with several multilateral instruments considered by the General Assembly of the United Nations or concluded under the auspices of the United Nations.